Candidates, like Gillespie, are part of the old Republican guard. Wasn't a credible populist messenger. And again, it's a blue state. NJ going Democrat after Christie is also not surprising. After being wrong on everything here ('Hillary is a shoo-in and had permission to break the law!!!'), it sounds like you are desperate to find any results to confirm your viewpoint.

Monker wrote:Nope. That's what a Bernie fan like you would do.

The opposition party nearly always makes headway against an incumbent president's party. You must be new to politics. 12+ wins by a Democratic Socialists, on the other hand, actually IS interesting. In some cases, they beat the two party system. Sounds like something an independent would be posting about. But again, your claims of being an independent are false. You are here to carry water for the DNC.

"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater

Trump has appointed gay men in his administration (Rich Grenell) and had openly gay, Peter Thiel, speak at his convention. He is the first GOP candidate to ever have a gay man speak at the convention. Trump is actually the most pro-gay Republican candidate in history. You are a fool.

"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater

Monker wrote:Nobody cares about this Clinton crap you are going on about. The voters were LIED to by Trump and they do NOT like it. Tax reform was supposed to go to the middle class...but that isn't what is proposed. Trump advocated UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, but that is not what was proposed - after multiple tries. During the campaign Trump told people what they wanted to hear, but it was all LIES to get him elected. Once elected, he threw everything to congress for McConnell and Ryan to get done....Well, they do not believe in the LIBERAL healthcare and tax policies of Trump....and that is not what they will propose or pass.

The majority of posters in this thread ARE Trump voters. You are now going to speak for us?

"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater

Donna Brazille: “WikiLeaks sought to divide us. These were active measures where you got to see the things I gave to Hillary, you never got a chance to see the things I gave to Bernie or Martin O'Malley."

Monker: “They leaked Brazille's Emails with Clinton...but did they leak Brazille's Emails with Sanders? Nope. So, YOU DON'T KNOW....you only know HALF the story. She could have said the EXACT SAME THING to Sanders, keeping things fair.”

Keep squawking parrot.

"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater

Donna Brazille: “WikiLeaks sought to divide us. These were active measures where you got to see the things I gave to Hillary, you never got a chance to see the things I gave to Bernie or Martin O'Malley."

Monker: “They leaked Brazille's Emails with Clinton...but did they leak Brazille's Emails with Sanders? Nope. So, YOU DON'T KNOW....you only know HALF the story. She could have said the EXACT SAME THING to Sanders, keeping things fair.”

Keep squawking parrot.

You are so lame. Below is the post that started it all. I SAID I HEARD HER SAY THESE THINGS ON AN INTERVIEW, to show my opinion of WikiLeaks. Then YOU for MONTHS go on about how I was defending Brazille...which was never the point of my post. NOW that she is some kinda Trump darling because she has been negative towards Clinton...you are twisting my words around AGAIN to say I was parroting her. You are such an unbelievable liar.

No, because it is one sided propaganda. Let's take Brazille. She had an interview where she basically said, "You have only seen one half of the story. There is this other stack of Emails over here that nobody has seen...and I can't comment on them due to privacy."

So, tell me, how do you know that Brazille did not have the exact same conversations with people working with Bernie Sanders? So, both sides knew what to expect and would have full and complete answers to the questions making it a more informative debate...which was HER JOB?

Now, I don't know if any of that is true. But, I do know that WikiLeaks is one sided propaganda and Assange has had a hatred towards the Clintons since the 90's...though he won't admit it.

So, I ignore it, and don't even comment on it. Assange is a criminal and should be treated like one.

The above was in response to you whining that I do not read WikiLeaks. I used what Donna Brazille said to show they only give HALF the story. That is why I do not read WikiLeaks or take anything they say seriously.

I was NOT defending Donna Brazille. I was paraphrasing what she said in the interview I heard from her. And, that interview was MONTHS ago - LONG before this latest book came out.

Perhaps if you paid closer attention you would have known Donna Brazille said these things LONG ago and not just now after her book came out. Perhaps if you paid closer attention you would have known I said I saw an interview with her and was paraphrasing her. Perhaps if you paid closer attention you would not be talking from a position of ignorance.

Trump has appointed gay men in his administration (Rich Grenell) and had openly gay, Peter Thiel, speak at his convention. He is the first GOP candidate to ever have a gay man speak at the convention. Trump is actually the most pro-gay Republican candidate in history. You are a fool.

Since there's talk here about last Tuesday's election results, I thought I would post this video from Lionel on the subject. In it he talks about people mainly Dems being irrational about what the NJ\VA results mean. In addition, like it or not, he talks about Trump and the fact that he's got some issues to tackle and it's showing in his approval ratings. In my opinion he needs to get focused. Also he talks about the GOP needing to get their act together and the Dems better get a platform and message other then the "hate Trump" that they have been pushing forever now. In short it seems to me Lionel's points are on the mark and realistic.

Here's the issue K.C.. JW has been filing FOIA lawsuits for forever. Even all through Obama's eight years. The problem is that it hasn't really effected how our government operates. Sure it may shock and appall the public but that's about all it has done. In another post here I said that Trump needs to get focused. One of the things he needs to do is replace Sessions. He better do it sooner then later. The longer Sessions is AG the more frustrated people like myself are going to be with Trump. I don't know about you, but I went into this giving Trump a very "short leash".

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

Monker wrote:You are so lame. Below is the post that started it all. I SAID I HEARD HER SAY THESE THINGS ON AN INTERVIEW, to show my opinion of WikiLeaks.

I wasn't quoting that post. The fact is, you have repeated DNC spin line-for-line countless times - there is alot of posts to choose from. Thanks for admitting that you were just brainlessly repeating a Donna Brazille interview like a brainless zombie. Next up, maybe you can find those mysterious emails proving Hillary had permission to use a private server?

Monker wrote:Then YOU for MONTHS go on about how I was defending Brazille...which was never the point of my post.

Of course it is. Wikileaks released thousands upon thousands of DNC emails. To say they are being selective in the release of their emails flies in the face of their track record. They engage in mass data dumps.

Monker wrote:NOW that she is some kinda Trump darling because she has been negative towards Clinton...you are twisting my words around AGAIN to say I was parroting her. You are such an unbelievable liar.

No need to twist. Your quote(s) speaks for itself.

Monker wrote:The above was in response to you whining that I do not read WikiLeaks. I used what Donna Brazille said to show they only give HALF the story. That is why I do not read WikiLeaks or take anything they say seriously.

Thousands of emails = half of a story? Do you have any proof that emails were held back? Why doesn't Donna release them? They don't exist. Period.

Monker wrote:I was NOT defending Donna Brazille. I was paraphrasing what she said in the interview I heard from her. And, that interview was MONTHS ago - LONG before this latest book came out.

MONTHS ago she was the interim chair of the DNC. So like I said, you are on here to repeat DNC propaganda. Months ago, you were also on here defending Debbie Wasserman's rigged TV debate schedule.

Monker wrote:Perhaps if you paid closer attention you would have known Donna Brazille said these things LONG ago and not just now after her book came out. Perhaps if you paid closer attention you would have known I said I saw an interview with her and was paraphrasing her. Perhaps if you paid closer attention you would not be talking from a position of ignorance.

I wasn't quoting her book. The book has NOTHING to do with anything in this post.

"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater

Here's the issue K.C.. JW has been filing FOIA lawsuits for forever. Even all through Obama's eight years. The problem is that it hasn't really effected how our government operates. Sure it may shock and appall the public but that's about all it has done. In another post here I said that Trump needs to get focused. One of the things he needs to do is replace Sessions. He better do it sooner then later. The longer Sessions is AG the more frustrated people like myself are going to be with Trump. I don't know about you, but I went into this giving Trump a very "short leash".

It won't shock me if Sessions job last about as long as Trumps trip. And what a OUTSTANDING JOB Trump is doing on this trip.

Monker wrote:"I help people follow the rules." -- an attorney friend of mine describing her job.

I don't think Trump even knows the rules that he is supposed to follow.

Not like Obama. The rule of stuff your pockets and screw the people. Lie your ass off to protect the system. The same system YOU defend. After all that has been exposed about Democrats, you still harp on something that Clinton paid to fabricate. FICTION.

Monker wrote:"I help people follow the rules." -- an attorney friend of mine describing her job.

I don't think Trump even knows the rules that he is supposed to follow.

Not like Obama. The rule of stuff your pockets and screw the people. Lie your ass off to protect the system. The same system YOU defend. After all that has been exposed about Democrats, you still harp on something that Clinton paid to fabricate. FICTION.

What lie have I told?

You're right, Trump doesn't lie like Obama. Trump is pathological. Even if all the lies you believe Obama told happened, that equates to about a week or so in Trump's pathological life.

Here's the issue K.C.. JW has been filing FOIA lawsuits for forever. Even all through Obama's eight years. The problem is that it hasn't really effected how our government operates. Sure it may shock and appall the public but that's about all it has done. In another post here I said that Trump needs to get focused. One of the things he needs to do is replace Sessions. He better do it sooner then later. The longer Sessions is AG the more frustrated people like myself are going to be with Trump. I don't know about you, but I went into this giving Trump a very "short leash".

It won't shock me if Sessions job last about as long as Trumps trip. And what a OUTSTANDING JOB Trump is doing on this trip.

Monker wrote:You are so lame. Below is the post that started it all. I SAID I HEARD HER SAY THESE THINGS ON AN INTERVIEW, to show my opinion of WikiLeaks.

I wasn't quoting that post. The fact is, you have repeated DNC spin line-for-line countless times

That is bullshit.

- there is alot of posts to choose from.

Bullshit again.

Thanks for admitting that you were just brainlessly repeating a Donna Brazille interview like a brainless zombie.

Bullshit again. I had a very specific logical reason for using that example. You just don't like it.

And, this is now your THIRD argument against me talking Brizille and WikiLeaks.

Monker wrote:Then YOU for MONTHS go on about how I was defending Brazille...which was never the point of my post.

Of course it is.

Go back and read the quote I posted. It was in DIRECT RESPONSE to questioning why I do not read WikiLeaks. I say it is biased bullshit with an agenda....and I was using Brazille's words as an example. I do not care if she is fired by the DNC or CNN, or if her book sells or fails. I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT.

Wikileaks released thousands upon thousands of DNC emails. To say they are being selective in the release of their emails flies in the face of their track record. They engage in mass data dumps.

Yeah, "dumps" is a good word for them. One sided bullshit with an agenda is another.

Monker wrote:The above was in response to you whining that I do not read WikiLeaks. I used what Donna Brazille said to show they only give HALF the story. That is why I do not read WikiLeaks or take anything they say seriously.

Thousands of emails = half of a story?

YES. Did you read what Brazille said to the other candidates? Do you have ANY idea what those conversations were? No, you don't. Therefore, you only know half the story. That is the fact.

Do you have any proof that emails were held back? Why doesn't Donna release them? They don't exist. Period.

You are now saying she had no Email conversations with the other candidates. That is just illogical and nuts.

Monker wrote:I was NOT defending Donna Brazille. I was paraphrasing what she said in the interview I heard from her. And, that interview was MONTHS ago - LONG before this latest book came out.

MONTHS ago she was the interim chair of the DNC.[/quote]

I don't think she was when I wrote that original post.

So like I said, you are on here to repeat DNC propaganda. Months ago, you were also on here defending Debbie Wasserman's rigged TV debate schedule.

Yep...because having two dozen debates was FAR too many in past elections. Six seems like a much better number, and that was moved up to nine. People stop caring when there are so many debates, I do anyway. I also believe scheduling three of them on weekends having fewer viewer is way exaggerated. Nowadays the highlights show up repeatedly on all types of news and on Youtube. On top of all of that, the candidates who are behind ALWAYS want more debates and whine about these things. It happens in EVERY election I have seen. So, NO, I do not believe the debate scheduled was "rigged" for Clinton. I believe Clinton was ahead and the others had to whine about it.

Here's the issue K.C.. JW has been filing FOIA lawsuits for forever. Even all through Obama's eight years.

Exactly....all it does is wind up people like KC.

The problem is that it hasn't really effected how our government operates. Sure it may shock and appall the public but that's about all it has done.

I don't think it even does that....MOST people don't even pay attention to such things.

In another post here I said that Trump needs to get focused. One of the things he needs to do is replace Sessions. He better do it sooner then later. The longer Sessions is AG the more frustrated people like myself are going to be with Trump. I don't know about you, but I went into this giving Trump a very "short leash".

Firing Sessions won't happened because he fired Comey. IMO, to get any nominee past congress he will have to recluse himself from the Russia investigation. And, he'll probably be drilled about following these crazy conspiracy theories. IMO, Trump will NOT get an AG of the type who will go on errands for Trump, like chasing chasing conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton.

This article showed up in my Facebook today. I decided to post it here because, well, it felt appropriate.

This happened, and was written, back in January 2015. It was before the conterprotesting of Nazi's. It was before Charlottesville. Before Antifa and Indivisible. It was before the woman's march. It was before the protests of Trump's victory.

It was after Westboro church made it known they were going to protest outside Des Moines East High School, because a judge ruled it was legal to use the flag in various ways of protest. Well, Westboro decided to fuck with the wrong community. They stirred up a hornets nest of community pride, values, ethics, and unity.

Nobody prompted these kids to do this. I know because my son was a senior at the time. It was their idea to counter protest. Westboro's beliefs are so counter to what this community represents that even high school kids knew the best thing was to make their values known and drown out the protest. It became such a big deal that Westboro, IMO, was afraid to show up.

Westboro Baptist Church members didn't show up for their planned picket Monday outside East High School in Des Moines, but that didn't stop hundreds of high school students from forming a counter-protest.

About seven members of the controversial group picketed at the Iowa State Capitol building as part of their "Iowa Flag Stomp Tour," but none showed up for the second hour-long planned protest at the high school on East 13th Street. A Westboro representative said she didn't know why the group called off the second protest.

"(Youth) have no hope, no future, then they're sent off to the killing fields of Afghanistan and Iraq and the streets of America," said Rachel Hockenbarger, a Westboro member. "We discovered that because we went and looked into their faces. …(The youth) deserve tears and truth. We're happy to do that job."

Westboro's presence in Iowa was spurred by a federal judge's decision in December to strike down two state laws forbidding desecration of the American flag. The church tweeted pictures and video of members stepping on the flag during other protests using the hashtag #IowaFlagStompTour.

"You can use the flag expressively and it's protected by the first amendment," Hockenbarger said, adding — unprompted — that the church has never committed any acts of terrorism or violence.

The church was founded in Topeka, Kan., and has drawn criticism for its pickets at funerals and beliefs on homosexuality.

Students from five area high schools, members of Des Moines' Experience Church and others stood on school ground at noon, waiting for Westboro members to take the public sidewalk which surrounds the parking lot. But they never showed.

"I'm here and I'm queer. They're straight and they're late," shouted one student into a megaphone.

Students chanted "Des Moines Loves" and held signs saying "I love gay people and so does God." Members of a biker gang named 515 followed Westboro to the Capitol then drove the school parking lot's perimeter, revving their engines.

"We hope to drown them out," said 515 member Ralph Young, 46, a war veteran from Des Moines. "They're standing there walking around on the American flag, with their feet, and then throwing it on the ground. All my brothers and sisters did not die for this."

The throng surged as more students chose to spend their lunch break at the picket line. At one point, students flooded East 12th and Walker Streets, blocking traffic. Some students danced on top of their car.

"A lot of people are telling us to just ignore them, but I think to make a positive statement says a lot about our community that we can gather here and be peaceful," said Camille Juarez, a senior at East High School.

Matthew Smith, chief of schools for the Des Moines district, said it's the first time he's seen students come together like this during the five years he's been at the district.

"It's not Des Moines school sponsored, but the kids do it in such a manner that they want to be involved and active in their community," Smith said. "When there's a potential of a protest arriving on our campus, such as the one at Westboro Church, it was incredibly exciting to see our students rally around that."

Westboro made stops in Bettendorf and Davenport over the weekend, including a stop at West High School in Davenport on Monday morning. Davenport police officials said about seven Westboro protesters were greeted by about 100 counter-protesters without any incidents.

Monker wrote:Yes, within the CONTEXT of a trans woman winning an election....defeating the guy who wrote the bathroom bill. Context is something you completely ignore nowadays.

Ah, so is that why you said "This election turned its back on Trump and his hate issues." Tell me, what is specific about "hate issues"? Sounds like generalizing. The implication is that Trump is anti-LGBQT, which is false.

"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater

HILLARY: “We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election."

MONKER: “This has nothing to do with Democrats but the entirety of our intelligence community saying that it happened. If you want to argue against it, you are arguing against the: FBI, CIA, NSA, Homeland Security...and on and on.”

HILLARY: "There's no doubt they influenced the election."MONKER: "Yes, if Putin had not been trying to influence the election, including hacking, I don't think Trump would have won."

HILLARY: "What I did was allowed by the State Department. It was fully above board."MONKER: "That's just not true. She had permission to use it."

Monker wrote:Bullshit again.

See above. Nuff said.

Monker wrote:Bullshit again. I had a very specific logical reason for using that example. You just don't like it.

To defend DNC debate cheating, you were quoting a DNC official (Donna Brazille). You have been caught red-handed doing this multiple times. There is not an original thought in your head.

Monker wrote:Go back and read the quote I posted. It was in DIRECT RESPONSE to questioning why I do not read WikiLeaks. I say it is biased bullshit with an agenda....and I was using Brazille's words as an example.

Yes, Wiki is so so so biased that George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton hated them equally for exposing war crimes. Hillary even wanted Assange droned. Sounds to me like they are pissing off the right people, regardless of party.

Monker wrote: I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT.

YES .YOU. ARE.

Monker wrote:Yeah, "dumps" is a good word for them. One sided bullshit with an agenda is another.

By that logic, I guess the Pentagon Papers were one-sided and had an agenda also. Maybe Ellsberg only released half of them to make Nixon look bad, right?

Bottom line is - you just don't like transparency that exposes corruption. If Wiki had an agenda (or even a full staff) they would only release relevant emails - not thousands upon thousands that volunteers have to tirelessly sift through.

Monker wrote:YES. Did you read what Brazille said to the other candidates? Do you have ANY idea what those conversations were? No, you don't. Therefore, you only know half the story. That is the fact.

1) Forwarding debate questions in advance is still cheating. PERIOD.

2) Wikileaks can only release what they've got. Brazille's cheating was exposed because of the Podesta hacks. If you want dirt on Bernie or O'Malley, go hack their campaign emails.

3) If Donna cheated equally (as you claim), Donna could very easily release those emails. She hasn't. They don't exist. Just like your invented "Hillary had permission to use a private server" emails.

Monker wrote:You are now saying she had no Email conversations with the other candidates. That is just illogical and nuts.

I ask again, if she used her position at CNN to submit questions to ALL candidates (not just Hillary), why doesn't she simply release those emails? If it wasn't cheating, why did CNN fire her ass over this?

Monker wrote:Yep...because having two dozen debates was FAR too many in past elections. Six seems like a much better number, and that was moved up to nine. People stop caring when there are so many debates, I do anyway. I also believe scheduling three of them on weekends having fewer viewer is way exaggerated. Nowadays the highlights show up repeatedly on all types of news and on Youtube. On top of all of that, the candidates who are behind ALWAYS want more debates and whine about these things. It happens in EVERY election I have seen. So, NO, I do not believe the debate scheduled was "rigged" for Clinton. I believe Clinton was ahead and the others had to whine about it.

LOL. Both Brazile and Debbie Wasserman got fired/demoted when their corruption was exposed. You are a Hillary dead-ender living in dream land.

"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater

@realDonaldTrump·Oct 31The biggest story yesterday, the one that has the Dems in a dither, is Podesta running from his firm. What he know about Crooked Dems is earth shattering. He and his brother could Drain The Swamp, which would be yet another campaign promise fulfilled. Fake News weak!10:10 AM · Oct 31, 2017

Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me "old," when I would NEVER call him "short and fat?" Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend - and maybe someday that will happen!

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump · 1h1 hour ago

More

Does the Fake News Media remember when Crooked Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, was begging Russia to be our friend with the misspelled reset button? Obama tried also, but he had zero chemistry with Putin.

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump · 2h2 hours ago

More

When will all the haters and fools out there realize that having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. There always playing politics - bad for our country. I want to solve North Korea, Syria, Ukraine, terrorism, and Russia can greatly help!

Monker wrote:Bullshit again. I had a very specific logical reason for using that example. You just don't like it.

To defend DNC debate cheating, you were quoting a DNC official (Donna Brazille). You have been caught red-handed doing this multiple times. There is not an original thought in your head.

Now you are just flat out lying. "DNC debate cheating" had NOTHING TO DO with the conversation I posted that to.

Monker wrote:Go back and read the quote I posted. It was in DIRECT RESPONSE to questioning why I do not read WikiLeaks. I say it is biased bullshit with an agenda....and I was using Brazille's words as an example.

Yes, Wiki is so so so biased that George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton hated them equally for exposing war crimes. Hillary even wanted Assange droned. Sounds to me like they are pissing off the right people, regardless of party.

I don't give a fuck what YOUR opinion is. *I* was being asked about why I do not read WikiLeaks. THAT WAS MY ANSWER DUMBASS. Get over yourself already.

[/quote]

Monker wrote: I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT.

YES .YOU. ARE.[/quote]

No I'm not. I will never, EVER, register as a Democrat or Republican. If I were to ever register, I would register as a Libertarian...as I have said.

Monker wrote:You are now saying she had no Email conversations with the other candidates. That is just illogical and nuts.

I ask again, if she used her position at CNN to submit questions to ALL candidates (not just Hillary), why doesn't she simply release those emails? If it wasn't cheating, why did CNN fire her ass over this?

I don't really care....NONE of this matters to me. Fire Brazille...I don't care. As for the Emails, I do not know if she has the ability to "release" them since CNN OWNS THEM. But, the FACT is, you only know HALF the story...you do NOT know what was said to Sanders. THAT is a fact. All you are doing is throwing up a bunch of speculation and asking for more speculation.

Monker wrote:Yep...because having two dozen debates was FAR too many in past elections. Six seems like a much better number, and that was moved up to nine. People stop caring when there are so many debates, I do anyway. I also believe scheduling three of them on weekends having fewer viewer is way exaggerated. Nowadays the highlights show up repeatedly on all types of news and on Youtube. On top of all of that, the candidates who are behind ALWAYS want more debates and whine about these things. It happens in EVERY election I have seen. So, NO, I do not believe the debate scheduled was "rigged" for Clinton. I believe Clinton was ahead and the others had to whine about it.

LOL. Both Brazile and Debbie Wasserman got fired/demoted when their corruption was exposed. You are a Hillary dead-ender living in dream land.

[/quote]

I'm stating my opinion. It is not 'defending Hillary". I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with the debate schedule. I do not see it as biased. I do not see it as rigged. I think it was a proper schedule for only three candidate, one of whom dropped out early. Dozens of debates were simply NOT NEEDED for only two candidates to get their agendas out there and contrast each other.

I also think you are stretching your imagination if you think the debate schedule is why either were fired. If you read what Brazille wrote, she said when she took over she found that the DNC was indebted for tens of millions of dollars under Wasserman's mismanagement and she made a 'bad deal' with Clinton to get them out of debt. So, if you want to blame anybody for the DNC's issues, it's Wasserman. She was bad with DNC finances and she signed deals with the Clinton campaign that gave them too much power. And, BTW, Brazille also said she went from department to department and office to office and could find no corruption anywhere. So, even though Clinton had all this power in the DNC, it was not being used in a corrupt way (ie: rigging an election), it was used in a strangling way...giving them just enough $'s to survive and keeping the rest for her own campaign. Also, NOTHING was stopping Bernie from donating to the DNC as well and allowing them to do more than barely get by.

The whole thing wreaks to me as Wasserman as a failed political leader and manager. Brazille as a whiny baby who took over in the middle of a DNC financial crisis. And, Clinton taking advantage of a weakened DNC, not to 'rig an election', but to have complete control of the party after she was elected...which everybody assumed was going to happen.